M/S New Rajendra Tyre Agency vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal ,Pa on 28 May, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.725 of 2011



-----------
M/S New Rajendra Tyre Agency,



 N.H. 31, Har-Har Mahadeo Chowk,
 near Kailash Hotel, Meerganj,
 Begusarai through its Proprietor, 
Rashmi Singh, wife of Sri Rajendra Prasad,
 resident of village and 
P.O. Khutaha Chetan Tola, P.S. Barahia,
 District Lakhisarai .. Petitioner


Versus


1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna through its Registrar, 34, Bank Road, Opposite New Police Line, Lodhipur, Patna-800001.
2. The Central Bank of India, Begusarai Branch its Branch Manager, Begusarai.
3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa, Regional Office Kosi Chowk, Ward No.12, Saharsa 852201.
4. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Zonal Office Maurya Lok Complex, Patna.
. Respondents


-------
For the Petitioner : M/s. Kaushalesh Choudhary and Kula Nand Jha, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvesh Chandra Verma, Advocate ------




03/ 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-Central Bank of India and its authorities.


2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure 7) passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in M.A. No. 06 of 2010 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the ex parte order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure 6) passed by the same authority in O.A. No. 51 of 2006.


3. It transpires that the Central Bank of India filed O.A. No. 51 of 2006 under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for the sake of brevity ) against the petitioner to recover its debts along with pendente lite and future interest at the contractual rate. The said O.A. No. 51 of 2006 was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure 6).


4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submits that notices were duly served upon the petitioner, who had appeared and filed written statement in the case, but on the date of final decision he absented. Hence the petitioner filed M.A. No. 06 of 2010 on 21.01.2010 for recalling/setting aside the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2009. This M.A. No. 06 of 2010 has been rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure 7).


5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that she has been paying amount regularly and she is ready to pay the entire amount as is clear from her application dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure 10), in which only concession was requested under the One Time Settlement Scheme ( hereinafter referred to as `the O.T.S. Scheme' for the sake of brevity).



6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the impugned order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal under section 20 of the Act, but without exhausting the said remedy the petitioner has approached this court. Furthermore, the question with regard to O.T.S. Scheme could have also been raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but she has failed to exhaust her statutory remedy although no special case is made out for consideration by this court.



7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may utilise the statutory remedy available to it by way of filing an appeal and if any interim relief is required by the petitioner, it may approach the said authority by filing an interlocutory application in that respect also which, if filed, shall be decided in accordance with law.


MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)